mgo.licio.us

"The face of the operation is Briatore (referred to exclusively in the film by his colleagues and angry, chanting detractors as "Flavio"), an anthropomorphic radish who spends most of his time at QPR plotting to fire all of the managers."

At press time, Harbaugh had sent Michigan’s athletic department an envelope containing a heavily annotated seating chart, a list of the 63,000 seat views he had found unsatisfactory, and a glowing 70-page report on section 25, row 12, seat 9, which he claimed is “exactly what the great sport of football is all about.”

Diaries

Disclaimer: My previews of Big 10 teams are based on viewing of 2014 games of said teams plus extensive reading of local and national previews of that team. I might be wrong in my assessment any one team or any specific unit of that team. But that's clearly doubtful. (!!) No, on a serious note I enjoy people who comment who live locally to these teams or is an opposing fan - helps us get a better perspective so if you are one feel free to add to the discussion.

I also write this with the assumption Jake Rudock is the starting QB as the matrix of possibilities is too great trying to predict things with Shane Morris as a start.

TL;DR

After making what seemed like a "breakthrough" in 2012 with a 10 win season Northwestern began receiving the type of hype you are seeing with Minnesota this year as a top tier 2 team in the conference. I've already outlined why I believe Minnesota hype will come back down to earth this year and it sure did for Northwestern. Some of it was just bad injury luck but programs of this ilk rarely have the depth to go a whole season without a serious setback. After back to back 5 win seasons Minnesota has basically replaced Northwestern as the chic program to pick as a challenger for the Nebraskas and Wisconsin in the West. As for Northwestern, 2012 feels more like an outlier and if Northwestern doesn't get to 7 wins this year that will be 3 years in a row without a winning season.

Northwestern has ranked between 66th and 76th in the F/+ rankings in five of the last six seasons.

Vegas has set Northwestern's win line at 6.5 games and judging from their tough schedule this sounds fair. Tough games with brainy schools Stanford (home) and a suddenly solid Duke (away) are mixed with FCS Eastern Illinois and quite bad Ball State. 2-2 seems likely. (Duke is likewise breaking in a new QB but is well coached, and is at home) Northwestern is probably sick of playing Michigan as UM has (at times undeservedly) snatched some last second victories away but it doesnt get easier for the Wildcats in 2016-2017 as their crossovers switch from UM/PSU to OSU/MSU. If they only go 2-2 in non conf they'd need to go 5-3 in the conf to go 7-5 and surpass Vegas 6.5 games. That seems daunting with the schedule they have. I might actually take the under on Northwestern this year.

The Wildcats should have a solid defense but at least in terms of preseason projections their offense lacks an established QB and a lot of threats in the receiving core; running back should be good and could be quite good if all goes well. OL is questionable. That said their defense should keep them in a lot of close games and its up to the offense to do something.

Last year

In many ways Northwestern was in a similar spot to Michigan entering 2014. Coming off success a few years earlier but some stubbed toes in 2013, many thought Northwestern was a bit of a dark horse coming into 2014, and if things fell right could challenge in their division. Two bad losses early killed that thought but by week 5 wins over Wisconsin and Penn State had restored the faith a bit and brought a 3-2 record. It went downhill from there as Northwestern closed out the year 2-5, although their week to week performance was wickedly variant. A team who in a span of 3 weeks could lose 48-7 to Iowa, then punish TV viewers with a 10-9 slog vs UM, and then beat a decent Notre Dame 43-40 in South Bend. It was one strange year.

Im terms of unit strengths/weaknesses - Northwestern had a horrid OL as measured by FootballOutsiders (83rd), which sunk down its FEI/S&P+ offense in the 80s to 100 range. The defense was decent with FEI/S&P rankings in the 30s to 50s which was a bit behind UM. At the total offense/defense unit level, Northwestern was a (barely) slightly worse version of Michigan. But at least had a bevy of serious injuries and an almost lack of 4/5 stars anywhere in the program to blame it on.

Northwestern was really boring to watch on offense last year:

Northwestern recorded only 34 plays of 20 yards or longer last season, fewer than all but three FBS teams.

Explosiveness is hard to quantify, but the IsoPPP (isolated points per play) stat does a pretty good job. In 2014, Northwestern's IsoPPP was .68, which was 128th in the nation. (i.e. last in FBS)

At the individual level, QB Trevor Siemian was what you typically get with a Big 10 QB the past decade. Nothing special - and often just bad. While he threw for 2200 yards his yards per attempt were a pathetic 5.6 (for comparison in 2013 he threw for 7.2 ypa!). And even with that short passing game his completion % couldn't bust 60%. 7 TDs, 11 INTs - it wasn't good. Freshman running back Justin Jackson was a revelation later in the year and he piled up nearly 1200 yards with a 4.8 ypc average. Michigan fans won't remember his name because UM's run defense stuffed him to the tune of 35 yards but aside from that game he had between 100ish and 150ish a game in all of Northwestern's final 8 games. Considering the dour OL that was especially impressive.

At WR - an ACL injury to Northwestern's top catching threat - led to relatively meh production from Kyle Prater (now in the NFL) and junior Dan Vitale. Both had "2014 Darboh like" seasons; ok as complementary receivers but considering they were the top line guys it wasn't good.

Speaking of injuries, they forced some young players into key roles on the defense last year which didn't help 2014 but should help in 2015.

The 2014 defense was good at two things: preventing big plays on the ground (40th in Rushing IsoPPP+) and preventing completions through the air (43rd in Passing Success Rate+, 32nd in completion rate allowed).

Special teams were not great either as the Wildcats were 124th and 114th in punt and kickoff efficiency respectively.

This year

Northwestern returns 15 starters so that is (almost) always an asset. However the bulk (10) are on defense so the offense will have major questions.

Jackson returns for his sophomore year and should be the star of this offense if his last 2/3rds of his freshman year are any indication. A year in S&C, a year to understand playbooks better and the ability for young RBs to really impact the game all contribute to this view.

The WRs were meh in 2014 but the return of Christian Jones - Northwestern's lead WR in 2012 and 2013 - from an ACL suffered last August should boost this group big time.

Like Minnesota, Northwestern should return a pretty darn good secondary. 3 of 4 starters return with Matthew Harris and Nick VanHoose a veteran duo at cornerback; Harris could be drafted. Defense end is also very veteran while the DTs and OLBs are somewhat lacking.

The schedule is not easy as along with Stanford and Duke the Wildcats have road trips to Michigan, Wisconsin and Nebraska while playing a neutral game at Soldier field vs Illinois. The Wildcats host PSU, Iowa, Minnesota, and Purdue - none of these are gimmees (Purdue's offense could be good this year if Appleby is the real deal). On the other hand Northwestern avoids the two top 10 teams in the conference in MSU and OSU. I'd expect Northwestern to be playing a lot of games that hinge on the last drive.

Northwestern Offense

Questions abound and until a QB is named (or a dual system) we won't really know what to expect.

At QB senior Zack Oliver, sophomore Matt Alviti, and RS freshman Clayton Thorsons are in competition. Alviti is more of a (limited) running QB while Thorson is more of the passer - he actually had an impressive recruiting profile out of HS - but still a newbie at the NCAA level. Some speculation that Thorson is the leader. While listed as a pro style out of HS the Wildcat previews have him more of a dual threat. Oliver had 57 attempts last year, completing just over 50% while throwing for 6.4 ypa. Unless he improves on that production, Northwestern fans probably hope one of those younger guys beat him out.

The OL must improve (returns 3 starters) and if it does Justin Jackson could emerge as one of the best RBs in the league. The WR corps should be boosted by the return of Jones.

If you're going to lose three multi-year starters (combined: 101 career starts), you might as well lose them from a disappointing line. The Northwestern line was decent in two important categories -- stuff rate (avoiding run stops behind the line) and passing downs protection -- but didn't get a push in short-yardage situations. And it created fewer open-field opportunities for its runners than almost any line in the country.

Northwestern Defense

A mostly veteran group here with some young bucks ready to play due to being forced into action last year. The defensive tackles seem to be an open area of concern however and the linebackers lost stalwart Chi Chi Ariguzo.

Ten of the 12 players with at least 2.5 tackles for loss return, as do four of the six with at least four passes defensed.

Matchups

(take these matchups with more of a grain of salt than usual because once you get past the month of September teams grow and evolve - well at least well coached teams.)

UM rush off v Northwestern rush def - Adv: Even. Both teams have questions and until the season begins its too early to really determine who has what. Hopefully by mid October UM has a viable rushing offense with lineman who create holes that running backs not named Drake Johnson can find. Northwestern's questions at DT offer similar questions for their rush defense.

UM pass off v Northwestern pass def - Adv: Even. This is only even due to Rudock. Northwestern's back 4 should be quality - espt at corner - but their pass rush might let them down. UM's receivers are of course lacking in production as a whole and are more about potential until we play actual games. Will it just be a group of complentary receivers complenting each other or will someone emerge by this time of the year? Expect a lot of Jake Butt (again).

Northwestern rush off v UM rush def - Adv: UM. This is only based on UM's performance last year and Northwestern's OL issues. Of the 2 teams Northwestern actually has the most proven back - which is sort of sad considering the multitude of high level prospects that filter through UM and the fact Minnesota's guy is a true sophomore. Aside from the UM game, Northwestern was able to run on the remaining 7 of final 8 opponents but without a great OL I do expect UM to have the (slight) advantage.

Northwestern pass off v UM pass def - Adv: UM. Northwestern needs to find an answer at QB. Maybe they have one by week 6 - it is a great unknown. Best case is Thorson grabs the jobs and begins to figure things out by this point in the year. The issue with UM is corner depth - this about the time of year your CBs begin to get dinged up and once you get past presumed starters Lyons and Lewis you begin to ask a lot of questions with the next group. Healthy savvy CB starters would be a boon if that's the case. (safeties have more depth) Northwestern doesn't have anyone who really scares you at WR but Jones should be solid. Michigan's "weakness" has more potential answers than Northwestern's "weakness" at this point in time.

Overall

Like Oregon State I think the type of team Northwestern brings fits solidly into the type of team UM is built to stop. Teams with good QBs scare me much more than those with "IDK", esp with UM's still "sorting it out" passing defense.

The defense should have a solid day and if they can do anything similar to what they did vs freshman RB Jackson last year it should be a comfortable win. While I'd expect Jackson to improve on his production and get nearer to 100 yards, rush defense should remain a UM strength especially up the gut. So "future Northwestern QB(s)" will need to find a way to get some yards thru the air without a lot of potent weapons.

This is a home game, enough weeks into the season for the offense to (fingers crossed) have a viable rush offense and that shold parlay in Rudock being more effective as the offense can be more 2 dimensional. Of course that is a lot of theories and we need to see them become fact by mid October.

Northwestern will be coming off a smash mouth type of game vs Minnesota while UM will be returning home after a night game vs a (IMO) not too impressive Maryland squad. However with MSU on the calendar a week after this game some Wolverines may be looking ahead.

This is the type of game a Harbaugh led team - even in year 1 - should do well in. Not to mention even Hoke's teams found magical ways to beat the unlucky Wildcats.

After seeing XtraMelanin’s post about the decline of football yesterday, my interest was sparked. I’m recovering from surgery and have way too much time on my hands, so I figured I’d dive into the numbers to see if I could find any trends. Xtra’s thread provoked a lot of good debates. Unfortunately, due to each state having their own high school athletic organization, it takes awhile for the NFHS to compile all of the data. Statistics for last year won’t be available until the end of this year.

Who are the big players in High School Football?

I will focus on the ten largest states by participation; Otherwise there is just too much data. These numbers are for male football athletes during 2014.

State

Participants

Texas

164,554

California

103,474

Illinois

47,068

Ohio

44,431

Florida

40,606

Michigan

39,963

North Carolina

36,273

New York

35,552

Georgia

32,979

Wisconsin

26,680

Argument: Football participation corresponds directly to population

Let's take a look at how population has changed over the last decade.

State

Population 2014

Population 2004

Percentage Change

Texas

26,956,958

22,490,022

19.8

California

38,802,500

35,893,799

8.1

Illinois

12,880,580

12,713,634

1.3

Ohio

11,594,163

11,459,011

1.1

Florida

19,893,297

17,397,161

14

Michigan

9,909,877

10,112,620

-2

North Carolina

9,943,964

8,541,221

16.4

New York

19,746,227

19,227,088

2.7

Georgia

10,097,343

8,829,383

14.3

Wisconsin

5,757,564

5,509,026

4.5

And now, football participation over the last decade:

State

Participants 2014

Participants 2004

Texas

164554

158575

3.63

California

103474

95504

7.7

Illinois

47068

49114

-4.1

Ohio

44431

44786

-0.7

Florida

40606

35993

12.8

Michigan

39963

42717

-6.4

North Carolina

36273

25449

42.5

New York

35552

33410

6.4

Georgia

32979

27047

21.9

Wisconsin

26680

30053

-11.2

Findings: While Michigan was the only state whose population has declined over the last decade, four states saw declines in football participation. It is hard to ignore what population growth has done for North Carolina and Georgia.

Argument: The birth rate is on the decline.

Unfortunately, I was finding conflicting data for the birth rates during the time when high school athletes for my parameters were being born so I'd rather not go off of that. However, using the US Census estimates, I was able to get the number of 14-17 year old males in each state and compare to those playing in 2014.

State

Males 14-17 years old

Percentage playing football

Texas

795,671

21

California

1,060,283

10

Illinois

353,058

13

Ohio

317,032

14

Florida

482,182

8

Michigan

275,155

15

North Carolina

263,117

10

New York

497,089

7

Georgia

286,185

12

Wisconsin

154,191

17

Findings: Not a lot. I was actually surprised at how high the football interest was in Michigan.

Argument: The economy dictates how many participate in football.

When the recession hit 2008ish, many schools were faced with budget cuts. Some had to cut programs, or make them pay to play.

Year

Schools offering football

2004

13,680

2005

13,671

2006

13,727

2007

13,922

2008

13,987

2009

14,105

2010

14,226

2011

14,279

2012

14,241

2013

14,048

2014

14,262

Year

National Football Participants

2004

1,032,682

2005

1,045,494

2006

1,093,234

2007

1,104,548

2008

1,108,286

2009

1,112,303

2010

1,109,278

2011

1,108,441

2012

1,095,993

2013

1,086,627

2014

1,093,234

Findings: The recession did not affect football as a whole.

Argument: Kids these days are lazy. They would rather play video games than a sport. Now get off my lawn.

Year

Total Male Athletes

2004

4,038,253

2005

4,110,319

2006

4,206,549

2007

4,321,103

2008

4,372,115

2009

4,422,662

2010

4,455,740

2011

4,494,406

2012

4,484,987

2013

4,490,854

2014

4,527,994

Findings: The number of high school athletes have trended upward in the last decade.

Argument: Kids are playing other sports instead of football

Findings: Hard to argue with that. The total number of athletes has increased consistantly, while the football player numbers have had a bit of a ebb and flow.

Argument: Concussion research has hindered athletes from playing football.

I will refer again to this chart:

Year

National Football Participants

2004

1,032,682

2005

1,045,494

2006

1,093,234

2007

1,104,548

2008

1,108,286

2009

1,112,303

2010

1,109,278

2011

1,108,441

2012

1,095,993

2013

1,086,627

2014

1,093,234

Findings: There was a fairly dramatic decrease in football participation between 2011 and 2012. As you all remember, Junior Seau shot himself in May of 2012 and sparked the debate about long term concussion effects. This correlation cannot be ignored.

I couldn't find hard data about younger football players. The Wall Street Journal has reported that Pop Warner Football participation is down 6% since 2008. My guess is that more parents are discouraging their children from playing during crucial brain development years, but then letting them make their own decision once they get to high school.

Argument:Undereducated parents are more likely to risk their children's health playing football on the off chance it may be their ticket out of poverty.

Findings: False. According to a study done by The Child Trends Databank, parents with graduate degrees are the most likely to allow their children to play football.

I will be interested to see if high school football participation will continue to trend up once the new numbers are released.

It's July, which means most of us are starving for college football, but our insatiable desire for it has yet to be satisfied. I had been playing around a lot on NCAA Football 14 (hi, Denard), which in dynasty mode offers many options in the way of conference rules and realignment. This got me thinking about a method to solve a lot of the college football discrepancies between conferences and, at this point, teams in the same conference, but in separate and huge divisions.

I over-eagerly posted a crude version of this under Seth's Big Ten post, but another MGoEmployee suggested I post a clearer, more organized version as a diary. So, here goes.

We'll start with the conference rules. All ten conferences will have at least 12 teams and thus two divisions and a conference championship game. This eliminates the argument about who does and doesn't have a conference championship game. I also placed Notre Dame in a conference so they are on the same field with everyone else, as well. The only two teams not in a conference are Army and Navy. By their independence they abstain from playoff participation. If theoretically they would like to participate in the playoff tourmanent, they would need to join a conference (American, C-USA, something).

* CONFERENCE RULES *

Conference Rules

Sched.

Type

Non-Conf. Schedule (Hawai'i Exemption Applies)

Nov. Night Games

Weekday Games

Start Conf. Games

# of Conf. Games

Champ. Game Location

ACC

Protected Rivals

1 FCS

1 Challenge

Pick Any 2

Yes

Thursday

Week 4

8

Charlotte, NC

American

No Protected Rivals

1 FCS

1 Challenge

Pick Any 2

Yes

Thursday

Week 4

8

Best Conference Record Hosts

BIG 16; Heartland

Protected Rivals

1 FCS

Pick Any 2

Yes

None

Week 4

9

Dallas, TX

Big Ten

No Protected Rivals

1 FCS

1 Challenge

Pick Any 2

Yes

None

Week 4

8

Indianapolis,IN

C-USA

No Protected Rivals

1 FCS

1 Challenge

Pick Any 2

Yes

Thursday

Week 4

8

Best Conference Record Hosts

MAC

No Protected Rivals

1 FCS

1 Challenge

Pick Any 2

Yes

Thursday

Week 4

8

Detroit, MI

MWC

No Protected Rivals

1 FCS

1 Challenge

Pick Any 2

Yes

None

Week 4

8

Best Conference Record Hosts

Pac-12

No Protected Rivals

1 FCS

1 Challenge

Pick Any 2

Yes

None

Week 4

8

Best Conference Record Hosts

SEC

Protected Rivals

1 FCS

1 Challenge

Pick Any 2

Yes

None

Week 4

8

Atlanta, GA

Sun Belt

No Protected Rivals

1 FCS

Pick Any 2

Yes

Thursday

Week 4

9

Best Conference Record Hosts

Ok, so that is all sorted out. Now, let's get to actually who is in these conferences.

Conferences with protected rivals will show those protected rivals on the same row. Conferences without protected rivals will simply list the members in alphabetical order.

* CONFERENCES, DIVISIONS, AND TEAMS *

ACC

(Atlantic)

ACC

(Coastal)

Boston College

VA Tech

Clemson

GA Tech

Florida St

Miami

Maryland

Virginia

NC State

North Carolina

Wake Forest

Duke

Heartland 16

(Big Eight)

Heartland 16

(Southwest)

Colorado

SMU

Iowa St

TX Tech

Kansas

Rice

Kansas St

Houston

Missouri

Baylor

Nebraska

Texas A&M

Oklahoma

Texas

OK State

TCU

American.

(West)

American.

(East)

Cincinnati

C Florida

E Carolina

Connecticut

Louisville

Rutgers

Marshall

S Florida

Pittsburgh

Syracuse

W Virginia

Temple

Big Ten

(West)

Big Ten

(East)

Illinois

Indiana

Iowa

Michigan

Minnesota

Michigan State

Northwestern

Notre Dame

Penn State

Ohio State

Wisconsin

Purdue

Conference USA

(West)

Conference USA

(East)

LA Tech

Florida Atl

Southern Miss

Florida Int'l

Tulane

Memphis

Tulsa

Old Dominion

UTEP

UAB

UTSA

UMass

MidAmerican

(West)

MidAmerican

(East)

Akron

Ball State

Bowling Green

C Michigan

Buffalo

E Michigan

Kent State

N Illinois

Miami U

Toledo

Ohio

W Michigan

MountainWest

(Mountain)

MountainWest

(West)

Air Force

Fresno St

Boise St

Hawai'i

Colorado St

Nevada

New Mexico

San Diego St

Utah St

San Jose St

Wyoming

UNLV

Pac-12

(North)

Pac-12

(South)

BYU

Arizona

Oregon

Arizona St

Oregon St

California

Utah

Stanford

Washington

Southern Cal

Washington St

UCLA

SEC

(West)

SEC

(East)

Alabama

Tennessee

Arkansas

S Carolina

Auburn

Georgia

LSU

Florida

Ole Miss

Kentucky

Mississippi St

Vanderbilt

Sun Belt

(West)

Sun Belt

(East)

Arkansas St

Appalachian St

Idaho

Georgia St

New Mexico St

Georgia Southern

N Texas

Middle Tennessee State

Texas St

S Alabama

UL-Lafayette

Troy

UL-Monroe

W Kentucky

This is, in my mind, a great way to get some of those old rivalries back, while keeping the conferences' integrity when it comes to geography generally sound.

Now, let's get back to the games.

Before we address the method of deciding a national champion, I had an idea that I thought would be pretty fun. However, that idea and the playoff format works off of conference seeding. Conferences would be seeded every season based upon various metrics (I'm not going to go into methods for seeing conferences, but I'll leave it open-ended. For example, you could use a combination of polls, records, strength of schedule, etc.) For this exercise, I arbitratily chose seedings for each of the 10 conferences, but under this setup it would be fluid and change each season based upon the previous season's results. The seedings I chose are below:

Seed

Conference

1

SEC

2

Big Ten

3

Pac-12

4

Heartland16

5

ACC

6

American

7

Mtn West

8

C-USA

9

MAC

10

Sun Belt

Now, the idea that I think would be extra cool and would give us a lot more better matchups earlier in the season AND force schools to play teams of their own caliber, is the "Challenge" system. Teams are matched up against teams from adjacently-seeded conferences for an early non-conference game, say in Week 1, 2, or 3. The teams are matched up based upon the previous season's conference record. The games will be at campus sites and will count just like any other game would. Even seeds would host the games, so, for instance, the #2 seed from one conference would host the #1 team from another conference. Every conference will participate except the Heartland 16 and the Sun Belt, since those conferences play 9 conference games. The matchups will be set up accordingly shown in the tables below, and hypothetical matchups based upon the conclusion of the 2014 season are shown in those same tables. (Spoiler: some luscious matchups emerge.)

SEC - B1G Challenge

2015 Matchup

(From 2014 season)

SEC1@B1G2

Alabama @ Michigan St

B1G1@SEC2

Ohio St @ Miss St

SEC3@B1G4

Georgia @ Minnesota

B1G3@SEC4

Wisconsin @ Mississippi

SEC5@B1G6

Auburn @ Iowa

B1G5@SEC6

Notre Dame @ LSU

SEC7@B1G8

Florida @ Illinois

B1G7@SEC8

Michigan @ Tennessee

SEC9@B1G10

S Carolina @ Penn St

B1G9@SEC10

Northwestern@Arkansas

SEC11@B1G12

Kentucky @ Purdue

B1G11@SEC12

Indiana @ Vanderbilt

Pac-12 - ACC Challenge

2015 Matchup

(From 2014 season)

Pac12(1)@ACC2

Oregon @ GA Tech

ACC1@Pac12(2)

Florida St @ Arizona

Pac12(3)@ACC4

UCLA @ Duke

ACC3@Pac12(4)

Clemson @ Arizona St

Pac12(5)@ACC6

SouthernCal@Maryland

ACC5@Pac12(6)

North Carolina @ Utah

Pac12(7)@ACC8

Stanford @ NC State

ACC7@Pac12(8)

BC @ BYU

Pac12(9)@ACC10

Washington @ Miami

ACC9@Pac12(10)

VA Tech @ Cal

Pac12(11)@ACC12

Washington St @ Wake

ACC11@Pac12(12)

Virginia @ Oregon St

American - MWC Challenge

2015 Matchup

(From 2014 season)

AAC1@MWC2

Cincinnati@ColoradoSt

MWC1@AAC2

Boise St @ C Florida

AAC3@MWC4

Marshall @ Fresno St

MWC3@AAC4

Utah St @ Louisville

AAC5@MWC6

E Carolina @ Air Force

MWC5@AAC6

San Diego St @ WVU

AAC7@MWC8

Pittsburgh @ Hawai'i

MWC7@AAC8

Nevada @ Temple

AAC9@MWC10

Rutgers @ New Mexico

MWC9@AAC10

San Jose St @S Florida

AAC11@MWC12

Syracuse @ UNLV

MWC11@AAC12

Wyoming @ UConn

Conference-USA - MAC Challenge

2015 Matchup

(From 2014 Season)

CUSA1@MAC2

Memphis@Toledo

MAC1@CUSA2

NIU @ LA Tech

CUSA3@MAC4

UTEP @ BGSU

MAC3@CUSA4

WMU @ UAB

CUSA5@MAC6

ODU @ Ohio

MAC5@CUSA6

CMU @ UTSA

CUSA7@MAC8

FIU @ Akron

MAC7@CUSA8

Ball St @ UMass

CUSA9@MAC10

FAU @ Miami U

MAC9@CUSA10

Buffalo @ Tulsa

CUSA11@MAC12

Tulane @ EMU

MAC11@CUSA12

Kent St @ S Miss

Aren't the top half of those great? Even the tip top of the Group of 5 Challenges are pretty good viewing. I'd watch Cincinnati-Colorado State and Boise State-Central Florida.

Now, after the Challenges, and Rivalry Weekend, and The Game, and Championship Saturday, it's time for the playoffs. Here's how it would work. The SEC and Big Ten, as the top two seeds in this hypothetical format, would head up two different brackets. The left bracket, with the SEC, would be the SEC, the lower seed remaining from the (7), (8), (9), (10) matchups, and the Heartland (4) and ACC (5). Winners of SEC v 7, 8, 9, or 10, and Heartland v ACC would play in a Final Four matchup at a rotating New Year's Six site. The right bracket, with the Big Ten, would be the Big Ten, the higher seed remaining from the (7), (8), (9), (10) matchups, and the Pac-12 (3) and American (6). Winners of Big Ten v 7, 8, 9, or 10, and Pac-12 v American would play in a Final Four matchup at a rotating New Year's Six site.

The College Football Final would be played at a host site that bid for the rights to host the game on the 2nd Sunday of January at 8:30pm ET.

(Army-Navy would keep its slot on the 2nd Saturday of December at 4:30pm ET).

Championship Saturday

(1st Saturday in Dec.)

Playoffs, Round 1

(2nd Saturday in Dec.)

Playoffs, Round 2

(3rd Saturday in Dec.)

Playoffs, Final Four

(January 1, New Year's Six Sites)

College Football Final

(2nd Sunday of Jan.)

SEC(1)

BYE

v lower seed remaining of (7), (8), (9), or (10)

(6:40pmET)

v winner of (5) @ (4)

(8:30pmET)

Big Ten (2)

BYE

v higher seed remaining of (7), (8), (9), or (10)

(12pmET)

v winner of (6) @ (3)

Pac-12 (3)

BYE

v AAC (6)

(10pmET)

v Big Ten (2)

Heartland16 (4)

BYE

v ACC (5)

(3:20pmET)

v SEC (1)

ACC (5)

BYE

@ H16 (4)

(3:20pmET)

v SEC (1)

American (6)

BYE

@ P12 (3)

(10pmET)

v Big Ten (2)

Mtn. West (7)

v SBC Champion

(9pm ET)

@ SEC or Big Ten IF WIN

C-USA (8)

v MAC Champion

(12pmET)

@ SEC or Big Ten IF WIN

MAC (9)

@ C-USA Champion

(12pmET)

@ SEC or Big Ten IF WIN

Sun Belt (10)

@ MWC Champion

(9pm ET)

@ SEC or Big Ten IF WIN

So there you have it, folks. I wish I knew how to make a bracket to show more clearly how my playoff vision would work, but hopefully it wasn't too complicated to figure out. Really enjoyed coming up with all this and thinking about all the possibilities. Cheers.

Disclaimer: My previews of Big 10 teams are based on viewing of 2014 games of said teams plus extensive reading of local and national previews of that team. I might be wrong in my assessment any one team or any specific unit of that team. But that's clearly doubtful. (!!) No, on a serious note I enjoy people who comment who live locally to these teams or is an opposing fan - helps us get a better perspective so if you are one feel free to add to the discussion.

I also write this with the assumption Jake Rudock is the starting QB as the matrix of possibilities is too great trying to predict things with Shane Morris as a start.

TL;DR

Minnesota is a program that has turned it around under the Jerry Kill regime but in some corners of the universe the hype machine is a bit too high from this set of eyes; especially considering the offensive production lost to graduation. In Cowherd's terms I'd like to be a short seller of Minnesota Gophers football in 2015 while stuffing them in my 401k as a long term investment 12 months from now once the price cools down. Jerry Kill has very much installed a Jim Tressel / Mark Dantonio (until last year) blueprint of tough defense + running offense + special teams.

Minnesota ran 77 percent of the time on standard downs; only Army, Navy, New Mexico, Air Force, Georgia Southern, Georgia Tech, and (by decimal points) Boston College ran more. On that list, everybody but BC runs an option offense, and BC did in a way, too.

Along those lines Vegas has set the Gophers over/under at a sterling 5.5 wins this year. Not exactly the stuff of Big 10 West champions. Of course that is not the end all but let's hold our horses a bit on the ascent of Gophers football - it looks a lot like what people thought of Northwestern 3 years ago. That doesn't mean Minnesota is not a tough out, especially at home, where Michigan (a horrid road team in the Brady Hoke era) must travel.

Minnesota must replace a ton of offensive production, and has some challenges in the front 7 on defense while offering a sterling secondary.

Last year

After a 7-2 start, including one of the darkest days on an Ann Arbor football field in recent memory, the Gophers faded a bit down the stretch losing 3 of their last 4 including a bowl. While most might remember wins vs Michigan and Nebraska and a competitive game vs OSU (and trouncing of Iowa) this is still a team that lost to Illinois midseason and beat powerhouse Purdue by 1 point... at home. That said, this is Minnesota and an 8-5 (5-3) year is considered a big success especially at this stage in the Jerry Kill era.

This was accomplished behind a sufficiently efficient offense (S&P+/FEI in the 40s to 50) and decent defense that nearly mirrored UM's advanced stats (40ish in S&P/FEI). What surprised me about the offense when I delved into the advanced stats was there was a good balance between the rush offense and pash offense as offered by S&P+. Meanwhile the NCAA stats tell a completely different story (NCAA stats are based on nothing but total yards) - rush offense = 28, pass offense = 119th. So we can infer the passing game was somewhat efficient if extremely conservative.

To have a good running game you need a good OL. To that end, Minnesota's ranked 19th in Adjusted Line Yards per Football Outsiders. For comparison BYU was 18th, UM was 50th, OSU was 2nd, Michigan State was 28th, and Wisconsin was 12th. So a solid top 20 unit nationally.

Mitch Leidner was ... not a great QB. He completed 51.5% for 1800 yards at 7.6 yds per attempt. He had 11 TD and 8 INT. One third of those yards went to TE star Maxx Williams who had 36 catches, resulting in 8 of Leidner's 11 TDs. David Cobb in most conferences would have been a superlative running back but 2014 was a vintage year for Big 10 running backs (well not in Ann Arbor or Happy Valley but a lot of other places). His 1600+ yards and 5.2 per carry average would make UM fans salivate and yearn for "the old days". Leidner contributed another 450 yards of his own and back up QB Chris Streveler was the 3rd leading rusher at 235 yards. Those 3 had 83% of rushing yards.

This year

Hopes are high this year for the Gophers in a weakened West, especially with the coaching turnover at Nebraska and Iowa being Iowa. But despite a solid coaching staff and a good secondary (maybe the best in the Big 10?) it is difficult to see Minnesota as a team that just "reloads". This is not Wisconsin where you replace one 1600 yard rusher with another. Will they find an adequate RB? Probably. Will he be David Cobb? Doubtful. So that is 57% of their rushing yards they must replace.

Cobb rushed 24 times per game; only Wisconsin's Melvin Gordon and Boise State's Jay Ajayi took more handoffs.

The passing game? It might have been efficient but that was mostly a TE situation. That TE is now in the NFL. Actual WRs generally had 300 yard seasons which is nearly 200 yards less than a Darboh type. And unless their QB improves his completion % from "coin flip" to something nearer to upper 50%s it is hard to see even a middle tier passing offense.

Long story short - a lot of offense production needs to be replaced based on 2 NFL players leaving. Can Kill's staff create new NFL players? Probably. Good staffs do that. Is it going to happen overnight? Doubtful based on how Minnesota recruits and what the backups did last year. A typical Minn class will have all 3 stars in it. I think these big production losses are a top reason Vegas is so dour on Minnesota's win total in 2015.

Minnesota opens the year on the same night as Michigan (Thursday) with a nationally televised game v TCU. That one was very ugly last year and with the new players Minnesota needs to break in and the offensive firepower of Boykin & Co that could be a bad outcome that takes a lot of air out of the Minnesota balloon. A tricky road trip to a decent Colorado State squad looms next and 0-2 is not completely out of the question.

After 2 bad MAC opponents Minnesota heads into Big 10 play with many of their tough games at home including Nebraska, Michigan, and Wisconsin. But must go to the Horseshoe and Kinnick Stadium (which plays difficult). Trips to Northwestern and an improving (IMO) Purdue loom. So I just named 7 of their 8 Big 10 games - it's not an easy gauntlet and other than maybe Purdue I can't say Minnesota is clearly better than any of those teams. They may be similar to many of those teams but that means a lot of coin flip games. So your 5.5 total begins to make sense; even if you like the over Minnesota most likely takes a step back this year and could be a 6 or 7 win team (4-4ish in the conference).

Minnesota Offense

As outlined above there are a lot of questions on a unit that returns 6 starters. Maybe there are answers. This won't exactly be last year's Minnesota offense as they are installing a no huddle quick strike offense in the off season. Short passing looks like it will be an emphasis.

Gophers fans are high on 2014 four star RB Jeff Jones who was ineligible last year. Now keep in mind Gophers fans are not used to four stars so any four star will excite them. Jones is the only composite 4 star I found in the 2012, 2013, 2014, and 2015 classes. Jones apparently did a solid job this spring and this is a team with a solid OL to run behind. Berkley Edwards, Rodney Smith, and Rodrick Williams are also in the running back group and it certainly could be a position by committee situation this year ala UM.

The WR corps are challenged - the leading receiver had 16 catches for 300ish yards. Without a bad a$$ TE someone is going to need to step up, especially if the running game needs time to gel. Minn fans are looking to four redshirt freshmen to provide some answers in the passing game.

The OL should remain above average. All conference guard Zac Epping is gone as is Minnesota's center but good OL coaches develop replacements and Minnesota's OL coach (Matt Limegrover) is well thought of.

Minnesota Defense

Here is a nice piece by SB Nation Study Hall on how Minnesota is trying to replicate MSU's "break don't bend" defensive style with their own quirks. It just continues to emphasize how important great corners and smart safeties are to making an aggressive defense work.

Like many other teams today such as the nearby Spartans of Michigan State or the Hokies down in Virginia, Minnesota embraces what could be called a "break don't bend" defensive approach.

The Gophers played surprisingly good run defense last year despite featuring "wide-9" defensive end play and a freshman nose tackle because they had two very good cornerbacks that could play press or off man coverage and a free safety that could also play man coverage on deep routes.

One of the Gophers' favorite coverages for maximizing their three coverage specialists is a variety of cover 4, or "quarters," coverage that asks the nickel and boundary safety to be the run-force defenders. Many teams will use this coverage, but Minnesota will often play their free safety as shallow as they can get away with in order to take away the favorite constraint play of the spread offense, the bubble screen

Minnesota's defense revolves around a senior laden defensive backfield, headlined by star CB Eric Murray (projected as a 2nd/3rd round draft choice). Briean Boddy-Calhoun mans the other corner (5 INT) and is all Big 10. Two experienced safeties - Damarius Travis and Antonio Johnson - patrol the center of the field. This should be the Big 10's best secondary.

The front 7 has more question. The unit only ranked 9th in sacks last year. Minnesota's star MLB Damien Wilson is gone. The front 4 will grow around NT (and true sophomore) Steven Richardson who people are very high on after a top notch freshman year. Defensive end Hank Ekpe is getting some hype - apparently he had very severe sinus issues last year that limited him.

Generally Minnesota had a solid rush defense but its pass rush deficiences offset some of the strength of that top end secondary.

Minnesota Special Teams

Senior punter Peter Mortell is All Big 10 - 45.2 average. Nice. Kicker Ryan Santoso made 12/18 last year as a true freshman but 9/10 inside the 40. Only 2/6 in the 40-49 range - that should improve with experience. They had the 2nd best kickoff return game last year and 5th best punt return game - obviously a point of emphasis.

Matchups

(take these matchups with more of a grain of salt than usual because once you get past the month of September teams grow and evolve - well at least well coached teams. Both these teams should be better in October than September as they both now have good staffs)

UM rush off v Minn rush def - Adv: Wash. UM needs to prove it has a run game and Minn has a decent front 7 even if their top LB is gone. Tons of unknowns and mysteries - we'll know better by late October who has what.

UM pass off v Minn pass def - Adv: Minn. While I like Rudock, the lack of UM WRs is the main issue I see in this matchup. The ability to get separation vs a pair of potential NFL CBs could be a big issue and while Rudock can overcome that to some degree it's difficult to not give Minn the advantage, although lack of pass rush could expose their secondary if UM's OL holds up. It is also worth nothing the Minnesota game was Rudock's worse of 2014 at Iowa (10/19, 89 yards, 1 INT).

Minn rush off v UM rush def - Adv: UM. Last year this was supposed to be strength on strength. It ended up not being so as Minn rushed for over 200 yards with 183 coming from Cobb and a nasty 5.7 ypc average. UM did a good job on Leidner - or if you are a pessimist, Leidner barely had to run as he only had 6 carries which will include sack yards. UM usually did quite well vs average to below average rush offenses in 2014 but struggled against units who specialize in the run. Fast forward a year and UM should still have a solid rush defense but Cobb is gone. Minn should continue to have a good OL but needs to show a back so slight edge to UM here.

Minn pass off v UM pass def - Adv: UM. This was weakness on weakness last year and Leidner was very efficient going 14/22 (63.6%) well above his year average of 51.5%. 7.6 yards per attempt was right in line with season average. Half his completions were to Cobb and Williams - again he needs to find replacements. With Lewis back, Peppers hopefully doing his thing, Wilson with 1 more year of experience and Lyons being decent this should be to UM's advantage especially if a pass rush can be generated.

Overall

Both teams have issues and both teams have good staffs but on paper UM has more talent - potentially a lot more talent. This game is on Halloween so unlike the version of Michigan for a decade I expect this vintage to improve as the year goes by. And I expect the same from Minnesota - that's what good staffs do.

I do expect Minnesota to have a solution at RB by then but will it be anywhere near Cobb's production? I don't know if Minnesota will have a solution in the passing game. Hopefully UM has answers in their running game by then because Rudock could be challenged - this Minnesota team terrorized Rudock last year although their front 7 might not be as good. On the other side of the ball UM's rush defense needs to be about it, not talk about it when facing good rushing offenses.

We all have road game PTSD due to the Brady Hoke era so facing any .500ish or better team on the road is a challenge until we prove otherwise. Both teams have a bye coming into the week with UM coming off a battle with MSU and Minn v Nebraska. This feels like a slog it out M00Nish type game where defenses may dominate. Upside surprise is UM's OL has improved by then and we find a running back or two ready to tear through Minnesota so we don't need to rely so much on the passing game. Also this should be a big game for Butt to exploit Minnesota's aggressive scheme.

"Time is a Flat Football" is a series of posts which will explore players from Michigan football history members of the 2015 team resembles the most. Tackled in these posts will be the offensive "skill" position groups: Quarterbacks, Running Backs, and Receivers/Tight Ends. My apologies go out to the offensive line, but it's very difficult to get o-line statistics, and more difficult to compare the groups. I used Python and Pandas almost exclusively for this quick trip to the past. Any "predictions" can be described as unscientific, but kind of fun.

Disclaimer: Obviously caveats do apply here. These are namely the effects of other position groups, coaching, and style of offense on the players being analyzed. Also, the past probably has no bearing on what current players will do, unless you believe Rust Cohle. I plan to deal with these issues by completely ignoring them. It's the off season, people.

Michigan has an interesting mix of running backs this year. Junior backs Derrick Green and De'Veon Smith were highly rated coming out of high school, but neither have locked up the feature back role at this point. Drake Johnson is heading into his senior year after a promising junior season which unfortunately ended after a knee injury. Newly eligible Ty Isaac will be a RS sophomore after taking a year off following his transfer from USC. It's a crowded but talented backfield, and at this point, not much separates them. Let's take a look at their stats, gathered from sports-reference.com. Here are their stats throughout the years they have been active.

Yr

Cls

Player

Rush Att

Rush Yds

Rush Avg

Rush Td

Rec

Rec Yds

Rec Avg

Rec Td

Plays Tot

Yds Tot

Avg Tot

TD Tot

2013

1

Derrick Green

83

270

3.3

2

0

0

0

0

83

270

3.3

2

2013

1

De'Veon Smith

26

117

4.5

0

0

0

0

0

26

117

4.5

0

2013

1

Ty Isaac

40

236

5.9

2

4

57

14.3

0

44

293

6.7

2

2014

2

De'Veon Smith

108

519

4.8

6

3

26

8.7

0

111

545

4.9

6

2014

2

Derrick Green

82

471

5.7

3

2

26

13.0

0

84

497

5.9

3

2014

3

Drake Johnson

60

361

6.0

4

1

11

11.0

0

61

372

6.1

4

We can also look at the totals for each player:

Yr

Cls

Player

Rush Att

Rush Yds

Rush Avg

Rush Td

Rec

Rec Yds

Rec Avg

Rec Td

Plays Tot

Yds Tot

Avg Tot

TD Tot

2014

2

Derrick Green

165

741

4.5

5

0

0

0

0

167

767

4.6

5

2014

2

De'Veon Smith

134

636

4.65

6

0

0

0

0

137

662

4.7

6

2014

3

Drake Johnson

60

361

6

4

1

11

11

0

61

372

6.1

4

2013

1

Ty Isaac

40

236

5.9

2

4

57

14.3

0

44

293

6.7

2

Green and Johnson were each having promising seasons last year before going down with injuries. De'Veon Smith put up a relatively good season, especially considering he spent most of the year splitting carries with Green and Johnson. Isaac's freshman year at USC was good for a freshman back who was not the featured guy. Let's find some comparisons to past Michigan running backs from past years.

Derrick Green

Derrick Green

Yr

Cls

Player

Rush Att

Rush Yds

Rush Avg

Rush Td

Rec

Rec Yds

Rec Avg

Rec Td

Plays Tot

Yds Tot

Avg Tot

TD Tot

1984

2

Bob Perryman

76

393

5.2

5

2

15

7.5

1

78

408

5.2

6

1991

1

Tyrone Wheatley

86

548

6.4

9

10

90

9.0

0

96

638

6.6

9

2000

1

Chris Perry

77

417

5.4

5

0

0

0

0

77

417

5.4

5

2007

2

Carlos Brown

75

382

5.1

4

0

0

0

0

75

382

5.1

4

2014

2

Derrick Green

82

471

5.7

3

2

26

13.0

0

84

497

5.9

3

Derrick Green's sophomore campaign ended after just 6 games, so his stats ended up looking like players coming off the bench. As you can see in the chart above, Green is in good company. Freshmen Tyrone Wheatley and Chris Perry are very similar to sophomore Green. No one on the list is a prolific pass catcher, which makes comparisons easier. Arguably the best metric to judge running backs by is Rush Avg, AKA yards/carry. Let's see who's similar here, and throw in TDs just to compare.

Green's 5.7 Yds/Carry looks very similar to freshman Chris Perry's 5.4 average. Freshman Tyrone Wheatley's 6.4 Yds/Carry represents the top of the comparisons, and he was much more of a TD vulture than Green has been. Carlos Brown's sophomore campaign looks somewhat similar as well. Let's see how these running backs fared in their next year.

Yr

Cls

Player

Rush Att

Rush Yds

Rush Avg

Rush Td

Rec

Rec Yds

Rec Avg

Rec Td

Plays Tot

Yds Tot

Avg Tot

TD Tot

1985.0

3.0

Bob Perryman

-11.00

-154.0

-1.5

-5

5

61

3.4

-1

-6.00

-93.00

-0.80

-6.0

1992.0

2.0

Tyrone Wheatley

99.00

809.0

0.9

4

3

55

2.2

3

102.00

864.00

1.00

7.0

2001.0

2.0

Chris Perry

35.00

39.0

-1.3

-3

0

0

0

0

41.00

85.00

-1.10

-3.0

2008.0

3.0

Carlos Brown

-46.00

-260.0

-0.9

-4

0

0

0

0

-40.00

-237.00

-1.00

-4.0

2.5

Mean

19.25

108.5

-0.7

-2

4

58

2.8

1

24.25

154.75

-0.48

-1.5

Every running back outside of Tyrone Wheatley saw a decrease in their Yds/Carry. The average running back saw an increased workload of about 20 carries, good for an extra 100 yds. Coach Wheatley is really skewing the numbers here. He took the leap from "damn, that guy's good for a freshman" to "damn, that guy's good". This is the type of jump we are hoping for with Green.

If I had to make one prediction based on this data, I'd say that Green's Yds/Carry will go down this year. Should he win the feature back role, I have no doubt that he'll be relatively consistent. However, the progression for the comparable backs above shows that if you're not Tyrone Wheatley (and most people aren't) you'll come back to earth.

Bottom Line: Derrick Green should have a season similar to Sophomore Chris Perry (2001).

Yr

Rk

Player

Cls

Rush Att

Rush Yds

Rush Avg

Rush Td

Rec

Rec Yds

Rec Avg

Rec Td

2001

2

Chris Perry

2

112

456

4.1

2

6

46

7.7

0

The 2001 team won 8 games and lost 4. Chris Perry split carries that year with B.J. Askew, who had a good season as well. At this point it's tough to see much separation between all four candidates for the feature back role. Barring a surprise breakout, this should translate to a running back by committee simply for the sake of fresh legs.

De'Veon Smith

De'Veon Smith, thanks to Maizeandbluenews.com

De'Veon Smith is another applicant for the feature back position. In the wake of losing Green to a broken clavicle, Smith saw the most carries on the 2014 team. However, Drake Johnson started stealing carries towards the end of the year before he too went down with an injury. Let's see to whom Smith is most comparable.

Yr

Cls

Player

Rush Att

Rush Yds

Rush Avg

Rush Td

Rec

Rec Yds

Rec Avg

Rec Td

Plays Tot

Yds Tot

Avg Tot

TD Tot

1984

1

Jamie Morris

118

573

4.9

2

14

131

9.4

0

132

704

5.3

2

1993

2

Ed Davis

93

441

4.7

2

11

89

8.1

0

104

530

5.1

2

1997

1

Anthony Thomas

130

529

4.1

5

21

205

9.8

0

151

734

4.9

5

2001

2

Chris Perry

112

456

4.1

2

6

46

7.7

0

118

502

4.3

2

2008

1

Sam McGuffie

118

486

4.1

3

19

175

9.2

1

137

661

4.8

4

2014

2

De'Veon Smith

108

519

4.8

6

3

26

8.7

0

111

545

4.9

6

The comparison which leaps out is Smith's sophomore season to Jamie Morris' freshman season. Attempts and Rush Avg are very similar. Morris was more involved in the passing game than Smith, but their Rec Avgs are similar (Smith's sample size is miniscule, though). Let's explore the similarities graphically because we can!

In addition to Jamie Morris, De'Veon Smith looks a lot like sophomore Ed Davis with more TDs. De'Veon Smith, much like Green, is in good company with the other players included in the comparisons. Chris Perry and Anthony Thomas were eventually drafted in the 1st and 2nd rounds, and Sam McGuffie jumped over multiple guys (a habit he has yet to break). McGuffie left after one year, but let's see how the rest of the guys progressed.

Yr

Cls

Player

Rush Att

Rush Yds

Rush Avg

Rush Td

Rec

Rec Yds

Rec Avg

Rec Td

Plays Tot

Yds Tot

Avg Tot

TD Tot

1985

2.0

Jamie Morris

79.0

457.0

0.30

1.0

19.00

85.00

-2.90

1.00

98.0

542.0

0.10

2.0

1994

3.0

Ed Davis

-13.0

-102.0

-0.50

1.0

-2.00

-53.00

-4.10

0.00

-15.0

-155.0

-0.90

1.0

1998

2.0

Anthony Thomas

16.0

232.0

1.10

7.0

-6.00

-65.00

-0.50

0.00

10.0

167.0

0.70

7.0

2002

3.0

Chris Perry

155.0

654.0

0.10

12.0

8.00

110.00

3.40

0.00

163.0

764.0

0.20

12.0

2.4

Mean

59.25

310.25

0.25

5.75

4.75

19.25

-1.03

0.25

64.00

329.50

0.03

5.5

Most of these players took a major leap forwards in multiple stats. It seems as though once a player has reached a De'Veon Smith level of contribution, the next year they are expected to take on a more significant role in the offense. The average running back got about 60 more carries, 310 more yards, and gained 0.25 more yards/carry. The players most similar to Smith (Morris and Davis) represent opposite trajectories. Morris became the feature back and would keep that role until he graduated. Ed Davis continued to split carries until he graduated.

Bottom Line: If he wins the feature back role, De'Veon Smith could have a season similar to Sophomore Jamie Morris (1985).

Yr

Cls

Player

Rush Att

Rush Yds

Rush Avg

Rush Td

Rec

Rec Yds

Rec Avg

Rec Td

Plays Tot

Yds Tot

Avg Tot

TD Tot

1985

2

Jamie Morris

197

1030

5.2

3

33

216

6.5

1

230

1246

5.4

4

Morris had a great season by all accounts. Most impressive was his 5.2 yards/carry and the first of three straight 1,000 yd seasons. The 1985 team went 10-1-1 and finished ranked #2 in the country, with Morris being a large part of the offense. Past Wolverines show Smith to be the running back in the most prime position to break out.

Drake Johnson

Drake Johnson, courtesy of CBS

Drake Johnson came on strong last season before going down with a knee injury. By all accounts he's been putting in the work to be ready for this season, and with his vision he is definitely in the hunt for the feature back role. Let's see who Johnson's 2014 season was reminiscent of.

Yr

Cls

Player

Rush Att

Rush Yds

Rush Avg

Rush Td

Rec

Rec Yds

Rec Avg

Rec Td

Plays Tot

Yds Tot

Avg Tot

TD Tot

1977

2

Roosevelt Smith

57

308

5.4

4

5

46

9.2

0

62

354

5.7

4

1989

3

Allen Jefferson

65

380

5.8

3

3

27

9.0

1

68

407

6.0

4

1992

1

Ed Davis

61

374

6.1

3

3

11

3.7

0

64

385

6.0

3

2007

2

Carlos Brown

75

382

5.1

4

0

0

0

0

75

382

5.1

4

2009

1

Vincent Smith

48

276

5.8

1

10

82

8.2

2

58

358

6.2

3

2010

3

Michael Shaw

75

402

5.4

9

10

75

7.5

0

85

477

5.6

9

2011

3

Vincent Smith

50

298

6.0

2

11

149

13.5

2

61

447

7.3

4

2014

3

Drake Johnson

60

361

6.0

4

1

11

11.0

0

61

372

6.1

4

Drake Johnson's profile is similar to just about every change of pace back Michigan has had in recent years, minus the screens. Ed Davis pops up again, and Vincent Smith appears twice. Perennial change of pace backs Carlos Brown and Michael Shaw also appear. The most apt comparison seems to be Ed Davis' freshman campaign, followed by Vincent Smith's junior year. You know the drill: let's look at the progress they made from the comparison season to the next.

Yr

Cls

Player

Rush Att

Rush Yds

Rush Avg

Rush Td

Rec

Rec Yds

Rec Avg

Rec Td

Plays Tot

Yds Tot

Avg Tot

TD Tot

1978.00

3.00

Roosevelt Smith

41.00

102.00

-1.20

-1.00

4

69.00

3.60

3.00

45.00

171.00

-0.80

2.00

1990.00

4.00

Allen Jefferson

-13.00

-111.00

-0.60

3.00

-1

-5.00

2.00

-1.00

-14.00

-116.00

-0.60

2.00

1993.00

2.00

Ed Davis

32.00

67.00

-1.40

-1.00

8

78.00

4.40

0.00

40.00

145.00

-0.90

-1.00

2008.00

3.00

Carlos Brown

-46.00

-260.00

-0.90

-4.00

0

0

0

0

-40.00

-237.00

-1.00

-4.00

2010.00

2.00

Vincent Smith

88.00

325.00

-1.40

4.00

5

48.00

0.50

0.00

93.00

373.00

-1.40

4.00

2011.00

4.00

Michael Shaw

-44.00

-203.00

1.00

-6.00

-9

-63.00

4.50

0.00

-53.00

-266.00

1.00

-6.00

2012.00

4.00

Vincent Smith

-12.00

-204.00

-3.50

0.00

-1

-75.00

-6.10

-1.00

-13.00

-279.00

-3.80

-1.00

3.14

Mean

6.57

-40.57

-1.14

-0.71

1

8.67

1.48

0.17

8.29

-29.86

-1.07

-0.57

The basic gist of this table is that many of these backs have reached their ceiling, and might actually take a step back year-to-year in Rush Avg. While the mean Rush Att and Rush Yd changes are +6.57 and -40.57, respectively, the running backs themselves seem to fall into two categories. The first category includes freshman to sophomore Vincent Smith, freshman to sophomore Ed Davis, and sophomore to junior Roosevelt Smith. Each of these backs saw a significant increase in their carries and a decent uptick in yards. The second group saw just as significant a decrease in usage between years.

The question of which of these groups Drake Johnson will fall into is difficult to answer. Perhaps the most relevant distinction between these two categories is Class. Most upperclassmen with Drake Johnson level production the previous year saw a decrease in touches the following year. All seniors experienced this decrease, as did junior Carlos Brown, although his decrease was entirely injury related. Only junior Roosevelt Smith did not see lower numbers. The two underclassmen, Ed Davis and young Vincent Smith saw increased usage.

Bottom line Given that he's going into his ***RS Junior year, I'm most inclined to say Drake Johnson's final year will mirror that of Senior Michael Shaw (2011). ***Thanks for the correction.

Yr

Cls

Player

Rush Att

Rush Yds

Rush Avg

Rush Td

Rec

Rec Yds

Rec Avg

Rec Td

Plays Tot

Yds Tot

Avg Tot

TD Tot

2011

4

Michael Shaw

31

199

6.4

3

1

12

12

0

32

211

6.6

3

The 2011 went 11-2 and won the Sugar Bowl. Shaw saw a small share of the rushing load with Denard, Fitz Toussaint, and junior Vincent Smith getting more carries. Carries were difficult to come by for Shaw behind these backs, a problem which will also be faced by Johnson.

Ty Isaac

Ty Isaac, expertly photo shopped by someone here at MGoBlog

Ty Isaac is the outside challenger this year. After a decent freshman season with USC, Isaac transferred to Michigan, finally completing the Justin Fargas trade. Isaac's 2013 freshman season was similar to a few familiar names.

Yr

Cls

Player

Rush Att

Rush Yds

Rush Avg

Rush Td

Rec

Rec Yds

Rec Avg

Rec Td

Plays Tot

Yds Tot

Avg Tot

TD Tot

2006

1

Brandon Minor

42

238

5.7

2

1

9

9.0

0

43

247

5.7

2

2008

1

Michael Shaw

42

215

5.1

0

6

32

5.3

1

48

247

5.1

1

2009

1

Vincent Smith

48

276

5.8

1

10

82

8.2

2

58

358

6.2

3

2013

1

Ty Isaac

40

236

5.9

2

4

57

14.3

0

44

293

6.7

2

If you've made it this far, you're acquainted with two of these names already. Freshmen Michael Shaw and Vincent Smith were similar to Isaac in most stats. Brandon Minor's first year was similar to Isaac's in many ways as well. Let's see how the sophomores stack up.

Yr

Cls

Player

Rush Att

Rush Yds

Rush Avg

Rush Td

Rec

Rec Yds

Rec Avg

Rec Td

Plays Tot

Yds Tot

Avg Tot

TD Tot

2007.00

2

Brandon Minor

48.00

147.00

-1.40

-1.00

2

-8.00

-8.70

0.00

50.00

139.00

-1.50

-1.00

2009.00

2

Michael Shaw

0.00

-30.00

-0.70

2.00

-4

-27.00

-2.80

-1.00

-4.00

-57.00

-0.80

1.00

2010.00

2

Vincent Smith

88.00

325.00

-1.40

4.00

5

48.00

0.50

0.00

93.00

373.00

-1.40

4.00

2

Mean

45.33

147.33

-1.17

1.67

1

4.33

-3.67

-0.33

46.33

151.67

-1.23

1.33

Minor and Smith saw upticks in usage and yards, but all three regressed a little in Yds/Carry. I really do not believe that Isaac will be like one of these guys, simply because I'm pretty convinced he'll get at least a third of the carries.

Bottom Line: No idea. Ty Isaac is a bit of an unknown at this point. Just over 40 touches on a different team is not much to go on. Isaac's his build suggests he'll be more Minor than Smith, but his pass catching ability seems closer to the latter than the former.

What Does It All Mean?

I'm not sure that Michigan has a running back on the roster who is ready to be "the guy". Derrick Green and De'Veon Smith have each shown flashes of being able to handle the entire load, and Johnson looked good in limited action last year. Isaac had a promising freshman season at USC, but it's difficult to know just what he is. A look at the Yds/Carry shows reveals strong numbers for each back.

These numbers are even more impressive when plotted against every Michigan running back with greater than 20 carries since 1975. The x-axis is the Class (1-freshman, 2-sophomore, etc) and the y is Yds/Carry.

The dotted line represents the absolute average Yds/Carry, and all four backs are well above the line. Those with fewer carries are well above the line, but even De'Veon Smith's >100 carry season last year put him above average. It looks like Michigan has at least four solid backs, meaning that at the very least we will have a strong committee. At best we might have the next Chris Perry or Jamie Morris. Just who that might be is impossible to answer at this point.

The 1961 team won the Big Ten title, the first since the 1953 National Championship team, with sophomore Bill Freehan leading the way, but did not make it to the College World Series.

After Freehan left to be a Tigers Bonus Baby, the 1962 team finished second in the conference, but won the College World Series.

Don Lund then left as manager for another job in the athletic department and Milbry (Moby) Benedict took over as manager until 1979.

Though his teams finished second in 1964, 1965, 1967, 1971 and 1973, and third place five other seasons, Moby's teams did not win the Big Ten title until 1975, Michigan's first since the 1961 Freehan team.

The 1975 team finished 28 and 12 overall, 13 and 3 in the conference, losing the NCAA regional final in Ypsilanti 2-1 to a loaded Eastern Michigan team, featuring Bob Welch and Bob Owchinko on the pitching staff, future Tiger Pat Sheridan in the outfield, and two more future major leaguers.

1975 MVP starting pitcher Mark Weber returned, but #2 man Chuck Rogers was off to the pros and #3 starter Craig Forhan was off to UM law school.

The 1976 team was shooting for UM's first back-to-back conference baseball titles since 1944-45.

Following the 1976 season, Weber was named co-MVP with fellow starter Lary Sorensen, a junior, who entered the year with a 7 and 6 career record, and left after the season as a Milwaukee Brewers 8th round draft pick.

It was: “Sorensen and Weber and pray for bad weather”, along the lines of “Spahn and Sain and two days of rain.”

After the pair of Boston Brave starters went 8 and 0 over a 12 day span in early September, 1948, a newspaperman wrote:

First we'll use Spahnthen we'll use SainThen an off dayfollowed by rainBack will come Spahnfollowed by SainAnd followedwe hopeby two days of rain.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Warren_Spahn

In the 1970s, Big Ten baseball scheduled conference doubleheaders on weekends, all 7 inning games. MSU was our travel partner, and Indiana was paired with Ohio.

Except, to close the season, we played single 9 inning games, home and home with MSU.

Games might be Friday- Saturday, or Saturday-Sunday, but, if the first date rained out, that was it, the visiting team moved on to the next town for the next day's doubleheader.

If the second date rained out, those games could be made up the following day.

First baseman “Boomer” Wasilewski (BA .248, but team leading 23 walks) was down in the count, one ball, two strikes, when he blasted a double over the left fielder's head, and his third game winning hit of the season.

Michigan wins, 3 – 2, running its conference record to 5 and 2, still good enough for first, over 8 and 4 Iowa, and Ohio's 5 and 3, going into Sunday's games with Indiana.

Wayne DeNeff covered baseball for the Ann Arbor News, and closed his story with:

“Michigan coach Moby Benedict hasn't had much luck trying to find third and fourth starters but has a couple of pretty good arms in sophomores Bill Stennet and Crag McGinnis and they're the likely starters against Indiana today.

“It would be a good time for them to get going” said the Michigan coach.”

Bill did start game one, and Wasilewski picked up where he left off, crashing a two run homer in the first inning, which turned out to be his fourth game winning hit of the year.

Stennet pitched into the 7th, when Weber relieved him after the inning started with 3 straight singles, for the only run the Hoosiers scored.

Weber threw 7 straight strikes to get the save; Stennet gave up only two hits and a walk in the first six innings, for his first and only conference win of the year.

So who would start game two?

McGinnis had only won Big Ten win, and that was over the Hawkeyes the second day of the conference season.

Like most Michigan athletes, Sorensen dreamed of being a major leaguer as long as he could remember.

But he put all that on the line, risking his arm, and his future, by telling Moby he could start again on Sunday, even after he pitched a 7 inning complete game Saturday.

The Wolverine bats finally came through, with a 6 run first inning, and 11 total runs on 15 hits.

Sorensen surrendered 3 runs in the 5th, but that was after an 11 to 1 Wolverine lead.

Moby said the plan was for Sorensen to go 3 or 4 innings, then another pitcher, then Weber, if needed.

He threw another complete game, allowing 4 runs, though only two were earned, to go with 5 hits and 4 walks, striking out 8.

Michigan ended the day 7 and 2 in the conference, ahead of 8 and 4 Iowa and 6 and 4 MSU, who had swept Ohio.

With the comfortable lead, and a true Michigan man pitching, no relief was necessary.

Michigan traveled to Wisconsin-Northwestern the next weekend, but the Badger games were rained out.

Weber's luck finally turned and he beat Northwestern 3-2.

It was Sorenson's turn to pitch well and lose, as UM outhit the Wildcats 4 to 2, but 3 Michigan errors contributed to a 2-1 Northwestern victory.

The next weekend was the home-and-home with the Spartans.

Sorenson again went for his 9th win, which would tie the all time single season record, in the first game at Michigan State, but got hammered 10 to 2.

Nevertheless, the Spartans were eliminated, as Minnesota split with Iowa to end the season at 12 and 6, the only team to actually play all 18 scheduled contests.

A Spartan win over us in the finale would put them at 8 and 4, in a percentage tie for first. They split their season series with the Gophers, but the next tie breaker was total runs scored, head to head, and Minnesota won that, 5 to 1.

In spite of an overall 18 win – 18 loss season, the Wolverines needed only to beat Sparty at home to clinch the conference crown, though MSU would still pass us in the standings if they won.

UM outhit Sparty 11 to 10, and each side made two errors, but Weber won easily, 11 to 3, for his team to repeat as champions with a 9 and 4 Big Ten record.

Sorensen and Weber combined for 7 of those 9 wins, pitching 147 and 1/3 of Michigan's 277 innings overall.

Weber finished the regular season with a win-loss record of 4 and 4, completing 7 of his 9 starts, 42 strikeouts to 21 walks, and a team leading 2.37 ERA.

A reliever with less than 16 innings had an ERA of 2.87, and the rest of the staff was 4.50 or higher.

Michigan's 9 and 4 record put Minnesota in second place, ½ game back at 12-6,(38-11 overall record)

Indiana finished 3rd at 10-7, one game back, and Sparty dropped all the way to 4th, at 7-5.

1976 POST SEASON

The NCAA regional was again hosted by Eastern; for reasons known only to himself, Moby declined the opportunity.

Back in the day, there were 32 teams in the NCAA baseball tournament, 8 regional sites with 4 teams each. They usually put one in the Mid-East and one in the North East, the rest usually in the South and West. There was no formula for overall seeding. All the tournaments were double elimination, with the winners meeting in Omaha for the College World Series.

The then Hurons, 46 wins against only 16 losses on the season, (including a 4 – 0 record vs. the Wolverines) again beat us the on the first day, 6 to 0, Sorensen giving up only 5 hits while going all the way, but the Wolves managed only two Jim Berra hits off EMU ace Owchinko, who picked up win #11.

So, Michigan was forced into the loser's bracket on day two.

Weber shut out Southern Illinois , with their NCAA leading .360 batting average, 2 – 0, in the morning game.

After Eastern beat Illinois State, we faced Illinois State in the 3rd game of day two.

Michigan was down 4-2 in the bottom of the 8th, when junior Mark Grenkoski, 1 for 12 at that point in the tournament, smacked his first home run of the year, with two men on for a 5-4 Michigan win, Bill Stennet throwing a complete game.

So, another UM-EMU regional final was set up for day three.

Coming from the loser's bracket at 2-1, we had to sweep 2 and 0 EMU to win the regional, while they only had to beat us once.

As in 1975, we won the rematch, this time, 9 to 3. McGinnis started, but was pulled with one out in the second inning, having surrendered the 3 Huron runs.

Sorensen came in to throw 7 and 2/3 innings of shut out relief, surrendering only two hits, and finally nailing down win number 9.

It was not easy, as the Wolverines scored a run in the 8th to tie the game,and 6 runs in the top of the 9th to force the decisive second game of day three.

Moby came back with Bill Stennet, in spite of the 9 innings he threw just the day before.

Eastern answered with Owchinko, who at least had one day's rest after his shutout of us on Friday.

Their #2 starter, future NL All Star Bob Welch, had also tossed a shutout, on Saturday, but the Wolverines pounded him for 4 runs in less than one inning relief in that 9 to 3 win in the first Sunday game.

Stennet lasted into the 5th, but gave up a walk and 3 consecutive singles. Moby pulled him for Weber, who gave up only one hit, but wild pitched in a run in the 6th. Sorensen came in, again, to throw scoreless 8th and 9th innings, but Owchinko, after two hitting us Friday, three hit us Sunday, and, beat us, again, 6 to zip.

Those were days of the iron men of the mound, no worries about pitch counting.

18 shutout innings for Owchinko, on Friday and Sunday.

For Weber, 9 shutout innings on Saturday, and 3 more innings Sunday, giving up just one run.

For Bob Welch, a shutout Saturday, followed by a 4 run relief stint of less than one inning on Sunday.

And the final two innings of the Wolverines season on Sunday, again, no runs allowed.

1976 did not boast the most talented team, outscoring its opponents overall just 180 runs to 178, hitting only 5 home runs for the entire regular season, and finishing in the middle of the conference in fielding.

But a team with heart, none bigger than the the co- MVPs, Mark Weber, and, Lary Sorenson, the starter who risked his arm and his future, for the team, when he threw back to back complete game victories one weekend in the spring of 1976.

Thanks to Debbie Gallagher of the archives staff at oldnews.org for finding Ann Arbor News stories, with box scores.